​The New York Timesreported yesterday that Donald Trump’s advisor, Stephen K. Bannon, who has expressed fringe history views, is apparently influenced by Italian fascist philosopher Julius Evola, who was popular with Nazis and Neo-Nazis. The Atlantic adds that Bannon is a fan of neoreactionary philosophy, which advocates autocracy and, at times, praises Nazi Germany. Evola’s followers call themselves the Children of the Sun, a fascist phrase used in white supremacist contexts going back decades, and a phrase uttered by white nationalist Richard Spencer in his infamous “Hail Trump!” speech. Bannon refused to confirm or deny influence from the philosopher, whom he referenced in a 2014 speech, but Spencer and other so-called “alt-right” thinkers suggest that Bannon can help bring into the mainstream Evola’s elitist vision of a hierarchical society run by a superior caste, a “master race” if you will. The anti-Semitic Evola was influenced by Nietzsche (but of course) and fetishized Germanic culture, becoming an outspoken supporter of the SS. He believed that historical movements such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were disasters that disconnected humanity from ancient truths. Does this sound familiar? It’s pretty much exactly what Jay Dyer advocates, minus the explicit racism, as we learned in yesterday’s blog post.

​Speaking of which, this week I’ve been profiling some of the ways that fringe historians and conspiracy theorists have embraced the Trump presidency. I have to say that I find it ridiculous that every time I mention Donald Trump I receive a barrage of emails saying how inappropriate it is for me to discuss anything political in conjunction with fringe history. As I have shown this week, fringe theorists and conspiracy theorists are not shy about embracing political causes, and few voices tell them to shut up. Worse, their fringe history and conspiracy theory claims have a direct line to the White House, making an understanding of them all the more important. Today, though, I’d like to get off the Trump beat, though I can’t help but note before I do that the subject of today’s discussion, Micah Hanks, runs a podcast called Middle Theory where he opines on Donald Trump each week, albeit in a way that studiously avoids taking a position or even having much of a point.

Anyway, yesterday Hanks published another Mysterious Universe piece about UFOs, and I was uncertain how to react to it. On the one hand, I am pleased that Hanks has come fully around to the position on UFOs that I laid out in 2013, but on the other hand, between this and his recent embrace of H. P. Lovecraft and other pulp authors as forerunners of the UFO and ancient astronaut movement, I am dismayed that he seems at times to be borrowing from me without credit, and without ever really retracting the offensive criticism he leveled against me before he decided all my ideas were right. (The answer seems to be that my ideas filter down to him secondhand.)

Regular readers will remember that Hanks became upset with me in 2014 because I did not believe that the Smithsonian was covering up evidence for the existence of giants, and he attacked my criticisms of his research by declaring that “hubris of this sort is actually worthy of study” as a case of ideology overwhelming common sense. Nevertheless, in 2015, Hanks embraced, albeit from secondhand accounts, my research from my 2005 book The Cult of Alien Gods and agreed that the writings of H. P. Lovecraft were an influence on the ancient astronaut theory.

Now Hanks is endorsing my 2013 view (which, to be fair, is not entirely unique) that the UFO phenomenon is an artificial construct imposed on a variety of unrelated phenomena. Hanks is speaking here in the plural as part of a literary conceit in which he writes of his ideas as those of both himself and the hypothetical reader:

Our intent here is not to make an argument against UFOs entirely. To the contrary, it seems very likely that a broad range of phenomena observed over time have caused us to amass an equally diverse collection of narratives about this perceived phenomenon. No two reports are alike, and in equal measure, the theories about their origins remain numerous and varied.

Yet even if we were to suppose, in the most skeptical sense, that UFOs existed solely as a concept, stemming from our various misperceptions of other varieties of phenomenon, the “false narratives” that have been built around them may nonetheless have inspired, and even shaped the natural progression of technological development for humanity over the years. To put things another way, could it be that the influence our observations of UFOs have had on our culture, and the development of new technologies, has been of benefit to us… even if we’ve wrongly supposed a number of things about their origins or purpose?

​His final question is a rather pointless one in terms of evaluating whether UFOs have any objective basis, akin to asking whether Star Trek benefited humanity by inspiring future generations to go into STEM-related fields. But his broader point is a remarkable echo of what I described four years ago. Here is how I put it:

The modern UFO phenomenon is composed (roughly) of four parts: UFO sightings, crop circles, cattle mutilation, and alien abduction. […] It is only after the 1960s that these threads come together in the modern UFO myth. Because we find the various elements of the UFO myth in isolation throughout history, the logical conclusion is that the four facets of the myth were originally separate and brought together because of the UFO myth and the UFO phenomenon is not the cause the four facets. […] If treating sightings, abductions, mutilations, and crop circles as distinct events yields productive explanations for each (as skeptics contend), then the UFO phenomenon as a whole may be considered as a modern myth and the UTH [Ultra-Terrestrial Hypothesis] can be discarded as redundant, though as with phlogiston and unicorns, it cannot be conclusively proven wrong, only unnecessary.

​I say this not to lord it over Micha Hanks but rather to point out how the same ideas that I get criticized for gradually end up getting accepted to the point that even someone like Micah Hanks eventually comes to take them as a given. I guess this means that rather than wait for the fringe to catch up four to ten years later, you should just stick with me. They’ll get there eventually, anyway.

The four cycles should not include crop circles, a series of hoaxes using human means to design circles into the fields, or cattle mutilation, of which there is ample evidence that wild creatures, birds or coyotes or other forms, could do everything they find on a dead steer on a farm, and the smaller bits are made by insects that have attacked the rotting carcass. Also it is possible in some cases it is human wackos messing with the farmer. To think it's somehow otherworldly beings traveling the stars to remove parts off a carcass is kind of silly.

But it is cool that someone out there in the fringe circles is not obsessively mad at you and has posted something in defense of the blog.

Reply

Cesar

2/11/2017 01:47:33 pm

Since the adepts of Evola call themselves Children of the Sun we may think in Marcel Homet (1897-1982), the fringe French author whose obra prima was first published in German as “Die Söhne der Sonne” (1958) and translated as “Sons of the Sun” (1964). The “sons of the Sun” were the Atlanteans, that spread from their lost land in the Atlantic Ocean to the West (New World) and to the East (Old World).

The book reports his expedition to Roraima, now a State in the North of Brazil, searching for “white Indians”, inscriptions from ancient Egypt and so on. The old fringe approach.

Reply

Only Me

2/11/2017 02:57:15 pm

While I would expect Hanks to insist he came to the realization on his own, if he concedes your earlier appraisal was correct, then I hope he reevaluates his criticism of your analysis concerning the Smithsonian and giants.

I believe that has always been the greatest flaw of many fringe proponents: accepting the possibility they could be wrong. Perhaps if they were as open-minded as they claim, they would understand being wrong isn't the end of the world.

Reply

Lurker_Un-cloaking

2/11/2017 05:26:02 pm

Just a general comment, Mr. Colavito.

Please ignore the whimpers and snarls in e-mails.

The 'fringe-history' nonsense you expose and skewer so well is an important element in the general debauching of the public mind, a necessary part of the detachment from facts which, when combined with lack of empathy and baseless convictions of innate superiority, produces the social and political attitudes which installed in the Oval Office its present squatter.

As you correctly observe, 'fringe history' tends to feed belief in white supremacy, an essential element of voting strength for the reactionary right in the United States.

As you also correctly observe, the hostility and sense of grievance directed towards people who actually know something, who have mastered a field of study and knowledge which is so pronounced among 'fringe history' showmen, mirrors the resentment of scientific fact and sociological knowledge which is, again, an essential element in rallying voting strength for the reactionary right.

Common sense, as someone said, is merely the sediment of prejudice acquired before maturity, and is a poor thing to oppose against study and honest reflection, if one is actually seeking a right course of action, rather than some gratification of the baser emotions.

While these trends certainly favor the right, I actually have a critique of a leftist approach to fringe history for tomorrow. It surprised even me to hear a radical leftist claiming that pseudo-Egyptology is a means to help destroy capitalism and the neoliberal world order.

Reply

Graham

2/11/2017 06:23:37 pm

It does not surprise me, I have seen some very strange interpretations of Churchwards material on Mu being used to support the more extreme forms of Afrocentrism (Eg those forms that take the old 19th C ideas and substitute West Africans for 'White People').

Lurker_Uncloaking

2/11/2017 07:29:25 pm

I agree there are some on the left given over to serious woo. A lot of it is concentrated in fields of health and nutrition. You can certainly see some of it in some feminist history postulating matriarchies and such. It does not have much actual political influence, though, and the mainstream of left politics and social thought rejects it. I was for some years a moderator on a large leftist forum, and I know first-hand what we tossed off as crap we did not want to be associated with. Left figures who might be equated to what is now the average right-wing legislator in terms of delusion and fanaticism are cloistered in the Greens and such; they are rare as hen's teeth in office.

I am looking forward to reading what you have planned for tomorrow. I look in here a lot more often than I comment. Found you off a citation on the old Paleobabble site some time back....

Americanegro

2/12/2017 08:42:54 am

"(Eg those forms that take the old 19th C ideas and substitute West Africans for 'White People')."

We substituted West Africans for white people for hundreds of years. And now we have rock and roll and hand dancing, so it's a win-win.

Julius Evola surely was an anti-democratic philosopher, yet the German National Socialists always looked at him with suspicion. The elitism of Evola and his racism was not a "biologistic" racism (or at least Evola claimed so). When Italy fell at the end of war, Evola fled to Germany and came under control of the SS. As far as I know, Evola was not an ardent supporter of German National Socialims or the SS. Yet again, it has to be noted, that Evola was anti-democratic.

The mentioning of Evola by Bannon in his 2014 Vatican speech is disappointing. Citation: "When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that." End of citation.

How in the world can anybody conclude from this statement, that Bannon himself is a supporter of Evola?!

I think the Times piece was more about how white supremacists have taken his familiarity with Evola as a shout-out to their cause. Bannon is the first senior White House official ever to have cited Evola in any context, according to the Times, which makes it unusual.

I hope that US administrations also cited Hitler and Stalin ... because you have to cite your opponent in order to analyze him. That is what Bannon did with his Evola-statement about Putin.

There is only one thing which excites me really about Bannon: Whether and in which way will the new administation fulfill its announcement to support Islamic reformers? This will give us a real hint to the quality of the new administration. If they do it, this will be a major difference to unintelligent Islam haters.

" I hope that US administrations also cited Hitler and Stalin ... because you have to cite your opponent in order to analyze him. That is what Bannon did with his Evola-statement about Putin. "

That statement, Mr. Franke, contains an assumption, namely that Bannon considers Putin an enemy. That is not warranted, either on his statements, or on the contents of his publication, or on the campaign statements of his patron or his patron's actions and statements in office.

Far more likely is that Bannon looks on Putin as a fellow traditionalist crusader, to be courted as an ally in a racial and religious conflict Bannon sees as a necessary cleansing episode. That view is consonant with the public record.

LURKER_UN-CLOAKING, it really would be helpful if you and all others would please have a look at the original and full words of Bannon. Look, it is not so different to debunking ancient astronauts hypotheses. Look into the original sources, and see what is really true.

Here are the full words of Bannon:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.rgezE5jKd#.tjDB0dpYy

And what do we see?

Cite: "Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first."

So, Putin is indeed considered as an enemy, as a problem, but not as the first and foremost problem.

If you have no sources (sources!) to underpin your claim of Bannon being a racist or white supremacist or whatever, you should stop saying so, ok? Maybe he is a racist indeed .... and is hiding it well. I have not enough information about it. But before I judge a person to be a racist, I want to see sufficient evidence for such a serious claim.

The word "crusader" you are using makes me suspicious whether you are a serious thinker. Calling somebody a "crusader" is a known topic of radical leftist propaganda. And then "cleansing episode" ... look, if you cannot show very (very!) good evidence for your harsh claims and this choice of words, you are lost.

Are you a radical leftist? Are you a radical leftist anti-democrat, LURKER_UN-CLOAKING? What do you think about the Trump administration supporting Islamic reformers? Do you support this?

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/12/2017 09:50:23 am

You have established nothing with that statement, save showing that Bannon does indeed seek an alliance with Putin, and does indeed see the world at present through the lens of a war between the West and Islam. For the rest, you might profit from reading Bannon's publication, Brietbart, and pay some attention to the comment sections as well. Your pretense that you have no idea what Bannon's racial and political attitudes actually are is not credible.

You close with a very entertaining squeal, that says a great deal more about you than it does about me. You seem to imagine that an article in the National Review defines the policy of the man presently squatting in the Oval Office. It does not. You also seem to imagine that opposition to someone who failed to gain a majority of the vote, and who demonstrates daily that the balance of his mind is disturbed, is opposition to democracy. It is not. Rather, it is the assertion of democratic values and social norms against a depth of corruption and deceit unmatched in modern times in the United States.

Let me get this straight,I am not a Trump supporter (not even a US citizen),so I have no horse in this race.I consider Trump to be a sleazy business man,and quite lunatic on many issues,But I also believe that in terms of foreign policies,he is far less dangerous than the pathological liar,sociopath and psychopath Hillary Clinton.Trump wants to "talk" with Putin,what's the fuzz about it?, Talking to your "enemies" is nothing more than "diplomacy".What is wrong with diplomacy?.What makes me cringe is the "liberals" hypocrisy. Trump wants to a build a "racist" wall?.Well, that wall which generates outrage and flows of crocodile tears among professional hypocrites,exists since 1994,and Trump only wants to extend it.But there is the cherry on the cacke.Back then, there was almost unanimity amongst the Democrats,including Hillary Harpy Clinton,for strengthening US immigration policies with Mexico.In layman`s terms,these puppies voted for the wall,now they are denouncing the extension proposed by Trump,and calling him a despicable racist, because he wants to stop illegal immigration.

On Julius Evola,it is worthless to discuss with individuals who never read anything from Evola.Yes Evola was a Fascist,anti democratic etc...but foremost,he was an elitist.He considered racism as vulgar and a demonstration of ignorance.His concept of "aristocracy of the soul" is extremely explicit.Evola believed there were "superior individuals" in every races.his fascination (more metaphysical than political) for Nazi ideology didn't last long.He became extremely disappointed with the utter intellectual vulgarity of Nazi leadership.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/11/2017 07:17:18 pm

A minor, irrelevant point: I agree it's pretentious for a single author to use "we," but I think it's a little unfair to call it the "royal we" in this instance. Academic works sometimes use "we" in a similar way, although the intended connotation often seems to be "you the reader and I the author, discussing this subject together," as in the second paragraph of Hanks that you quote. It's weirder in the first paragraph, where Hanks is talking about his personal intent, but I'm sure there's precedent in academia for that, too. Like many fringe authors, Hanks wants to sound intellectual.

A related academic habit is to write "the present author" instead of "me," as if the first-person singular is too formal for academic writers to use. That usage really bugs me, though fortunately it's growing less common.

Oh, certainly, but I was mostly just trying to find a simple way of indicating why I was talking of the singular Hanks but quoting writing with plural pronouns. I guess for accuracy's sake I should give it a longer explanation.

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

2/11/2017 10:46:40 pm

Heh. I see you did, but really I was just being nit-picky and going off on a tangent about bad academic habits.

Ah, but if you bring it up, Hanks almost certainly will be thinking it, too!

Padfoot

2/12/2017 01:58:23 pm

Bring back the SS and let everyone join.

Reply

Frank

2/17/2017 09:26:30 am

Thorwald,

You stress that you want to see evidence. What is evidence to you? Let us take Atlantis as an example. What evidence have you provided for your judgment as to what Plato's end was for having given us this undying tale of Atlantis?

However, this is another subject here, but still relative to evil empires, and your judgment as to what kind of evidence you would want to see before another evil empire, in the making, can be unmasked before it's too late.

Let us take you and your dear Father land. You, one of its dear and very intelligent children, and your idea of not coming to terms with the ultimate fact, a fact as to where things are heading.

You say this; "But before I judge a person to be a racist, I want to see sufficient evidence for such a serious claim." I suppose that you mean that you want to see the concentration camps, the smoke, and smell the burning human bodies, see the skeletal only bodies of the concentration camps' occupants, see the heaping piles of human dead bodies, etc., before you can, sufficiently, and ultimately state that your ex-Fuhrer was a racist?

Is this the kind of fact you are referring to? Well, I'm afraid that you are, again, making the same mistakes of the past, like your forefathers, who also wanted to see a Great Germany again. In fact, those, although not all, were willing to look the other way, and pretend that it was justifiable, and a necessary sacrifice to make to the gods of the Aryan race. All those millions of Jewish human sacrifices. And then when they ran out of those, your Fuhrer and his band of "Bannons" began to sacrifice millions of their own children.

However your Aryans gods were slow to answer your forefathers' prayers to make Germany Great again, as the gods' thanks for all that sweet savor coming up to them from all that burning human meat offered on the altars was delayed, due to the enormous distance between the gods and your forefathers. And it took another 50 years or so for their blessings to reach down here, and "properly" made Germany great again.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.